Socialism vs. Communism

Some, for pragmatic reasons, divide them as two stages of the same thing.

According to this, it could be argued that Socialism is merely the stage in which workers have succeded in taking over the means of producton and already coordinate them democratically. It could be argued that communism, in contrast, is merely when said socialism has achieved a functional enough infrastructure to establish an egalitarian society, that is "socialism working at its best".

Not that I utterely agree with this definition, but, as a pragmatic one I think it makes sense. And the understanding of many is similar to this but in a very faint way.

Basically according to this "socialism" would be "communism in development" while communism would be "fully developed socialism".

An example would go like this:

Workers take over the means of production and organize democratically in their management. Socialism has been achieved. However, there are still lots of homeless persons, illiterate persons, disfunctional infrastructure, lots of unemployed individuals and there is still much work to be done in order to achieve an egalitarian and "perffectly" workable and organized society.

During this period of socialism, the remaining illiteracy is being battled. Food distribution greatly targets sufficing the needs of those starvin. The masses of the once unemployed are given a capacitation for their inclusion into economy as workers. Infrastructure and societal organization are being rebuilt and developed.

The workers' democracy has been achieved and its time for it to develop or stagnate according to the decisions taken by workers.

Socialism thusly promises nothing of what is commonly attached to communism such as an almost idylic society. It simply imples the workers overthrowing the system of oppression over them and taking over the means of production.

Socialism could remain as socialism or evolve into communism. Depending on the organizational levels achieved by workers it will hapen at a slower or faster pace, since basically Communism is just perfectioned socialism.

Communism would be when there are no more starving individuals, the ammount of improductive individuals has been kept to a minimum (due to the inclusion of improductive forces into economy), the infrastructure allows a completely equitative distribution of goods and the society is in constant and accelerating cultural and scientific development without hindrances intrinsic to other less organized and more conflictive systems of societal organization. It could as well develop a "communist culture".

It is plausible though to think the logical path for socialism to follow is to evolve into communism, according to this definition.

I briefly touched on this in your similar post on WR, but I'd rather elucidate on it here rather than there... for obvious reasons.

Your definition is, I think, good, if we consider the fact that I think that you're defining Socialism within the framework of a Marxist dictum and language. So, in this sense, you have defined Socialism accurately, insofar as it is seen as the development stage between Capitalism and Communism - which can only be brought about in a highly-developed, industrialized, and neoliberal sort of Capitalist state, not a weak one.

But let's take someone like Eugene V. Debs for example. I'm pretty familiar with Debs' life and what he has said, and I can think of no moment where he ever advocated for Communism. Make no mistake about it, the man did use Marxist language - he referred to the workers as the proletariat, among other things - but I don't think we can call him a Communist simply for using a certain type of diction. What he advocated for was Socialism, rather than Communism and the whithering away of the State.

So yes, I agree, even outside of Marxist language, that Communism is Socialism - and Anarchism is also Socialism. But I don't know if you can say that Socialism is Communism - or that it is Anarchism.

But let's take someone like Eugene V. Debs for example. I'm pretty familiar with Debs' life and what he has said, and I can think of no moment where he ever advocated for Communism. Make no mistake about it, the man did use Marxist language - he referred to the workers as the proletariat, among other things - but I don't think we can call him a Communist simply for using a certain type of diction. What he advocated for was Socialism, rather than Communism and the whithering away of the State.

Yes, or, say, Daniel De Leon. They advocated socialism, and meant it in the same way that Marx did, that is, as a synonym of 'communism'. Marx and Engels originally used the word 'communism' because 'socialism' was mainly used to refer to utopian socialists, while more practical working class movements called themselves 'communist'. As the utopians died out, M+E began to use the term 'socialism' more to describe their own beliefs and such, and De Leon, Debs, etc, just carried on this usage. The idea that socialism and communism were different stages originates from Lenin. Marx did advocate a 'lower stage of communism', but that was still egalitarian, international and classless (and thus, by his definition, stateless), the main difference being that it used labour credits, rather than the other common tendency, glorified (though impractical and subjective) invisible labour credits. Also, it was still communism. The 'higher stage' was basically when unpleasant (boring, dangerous, etc) labour had been pretty much abolished, thus leaving all 'labour' still left as engaging and interesting. It would also mean that scarcity had ended, which is something that is currently still not possible (though many things could now be abundant, such as food). It was also a reference to Louis Blanc's 'from each... to each...', which was pretty much 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' in slightly different wording.

The idea that socialism and communism were different stages originates from Lenin. Marx did advocate a 'lower stage of communism', but that was still egalitarian, international and classless (and thus, by his definition, stateless), the main difference being that it used labour credits, rather than the other common tendency, glorified (though impractical and subjective) invisible labour credits. Also, it was still communism.

Well, that idea is to some extent pragmatic if considered two stages of the same thing. For example, while socialism is classless and egalitarian, it doesn't mean that amidst revolution or right after it all classes will be gone (unless every single step leading to an egalitarian society is part of the revolution thusly meaning that revolution would have not ended until these objectives are fulfilled). In this understanding, a succesful revolution would have as consequence capitalism being overthrown by workers taking the means of production starting the struction of an egalitarian society (but not achieving it yet) thus leading to socialism. But right after this succesful revolution there would be an inmense work left to do in order to set the foundations for a properly workable egalitarian society thus being an "imperfect" stage.

Stos wrote:

The 'higher stage' was basically when unpleasant (boring, dangerous, etc) labour had been pretty much abolished, thus leaving all 'labour' still left as engaging and interesting.

I hardly think there can be a general consensus on wether a certain kind of labour can be boring or not. By this I mean that this concept can be very varied. Many persons can even consider any kind of work boring and unengaging and just part of a social responsability finding real pleasure and interest just in entertaining non productive activities.

Few kinds of work are of a really unpleasant nature to most humans but many of these activities' necesity can be prevented with the proper infrastructural planification and a proper social interaction culture.

Else, humanity can never leave behind basic labour wether boring or dangerous or not just because it has reached a technological developmental stage that, given its present circumstances, people can stop engaging directly in. This is part of my theory on the necesity of a laboural culture.

Stos wrote:

It would also mean that scarcity had ended, which is something that is currently still not possible (though many things could now be abundant, such as food).

If Communism was to be broken down into "Socialism" and "Communism" (and I stress again that I'm not utterely convinced by this) socialism would be the stage in which there would still be scarcity while communism would be the one in which it has ended.

Basically this notion is just to give names to "lower" and "upper" stages of communism.